Science
Most scientists come to their discoveries not through deep analysis and precise calculations, but through insights. ”Eureka!” – as Archimedes exclaimed at the time, discovering the law of hydrostatics (it is also called the law of “Archimedes’ force” – author). What does this tell us? Probably, that scientists do not make their most important and fundamental discoveries by scientific methods. That is, not by scrupulous mathematical analysis or by deduction, induction and other logical constructions. And also not with the help of hypotheses, assumptions and various theories. The latter, of course, are present, but appear later, already after the discovery itself.
Paradox or pattern?
Minus of science
The trouble with science, in my opinion, is that it limits itself. Science is always subject to accuracy and calculation. This is one of the main shortcomings of science, despite its many advantages. Accuracy and calculation, this is “ratio” – something that can be proved and “touched”. But our world is not only something that can be “touched”, seen or logically explained. Bertrand Russell, a philosopher, public figure and Nobel Prize winner in literature, wrote that “science can limit knowledge to natural limits, but it should not and cannot set limits to the imagination” (see B. Russell, “History of Western Philosophy”).
– If science is so authoritative and unshakable, then the question arises: why can’t most scientific discoveries and breakthroughs be calculated or predicted using formulas and equations? Does this mean that science is not the ultimate peak and “final truth” that one can aspire to and refer to in case of need? Perhaps it’s not a summit at all, but just a “sandcastle,” undoubtedly built by outstanding minds, yet limited by a rather narrow toolkit, steeped in dogma and prejudice?
– So it turns out that theorems describe certain amorphous phenomena that came into being precisely due to chance: spontaneous discoveries, experiments, or emotionally intuitive insights.
Based on everything mentioned above, it’s clear how far modern science and its methods still are from understanding the true nature of the world around us and the phenomena occurring within it. Despite all its innovation and progressiveness, coupled with the creation of countless new disciplines, research institutes, and centers spread across tens of thousands worldwide. You’ll agree that something just doesn’t add up.
The question is, why confine everything within frameworks that are difficult to escape from later, why explain the eternal laws of the universe with four letters and numbers, or try to calculate the mathematical formula for a sunset? Perhaps the same age-old debate is at play here: which came first, the chicken or the egg? Emotion or thought? Logic + “ratio” on one side of the scales; spiritual and emotional understanding of the world and oneself – on the other. What is primary and what is secondary? What’s important, and what’s secondary?
Intuition
Let’s take another category: intuition (in idealistic philosophy, the direct perception of “truth” thru immediate contemplation, mystical insight, without scientific analysis – author’s note). When all possible and impossible ways of understanding future situations and processes are exhausted, a hidden and mysterious human quality – intuition, which is present in each of us to some degree – “takes the stage.” And what might seem to contradict all logic and common sense, in the case of an intuitive flash of insight, comes to the forefront, winning all conceivable and inconceivable competitions for penetrating the geometry of future events: what has not yet happened. So, in the struggle between sensual, spiritual and moral knowledge of the laws of the universe and logical “ratio,” experiments and systematic analysis, which are the methods science operates with, things are clearly not in favour of the latter.
Positive side of science
Certainly, if you dig deeper, you can find positive aspects in science as well. It’s astonishing, but science, which is inherently limited by numerous frameworks and conventions, is nevertheless the bridge that connects two opposing shores: the researcher of the Universe and, in fact, the Universe itself, in all its undeniable truth. Science is the inspiring factor thanks to which electricity and the internal combustion engine were invented, and thanks to which, in the second half of the 20th century, Homo sapiens “set foot” on the first extraterrestrial object – the Moon, taking “a small step for a man, but an immeasurably giant leap for all mankind” (a quote by Neil Alden Armstrong – an American astronaut and commander of the Apollo 11 mission).
Science, particularly science fiction, has also greatly inspired and continues to inspire people in the arts to create their paintings and works: musicians, poets, and artists.
Science fiction plays a crucial role in popularising science. It predicted numerous scientific discoveries and inventions. Significant contributions to this were made by science fiction writers Jules Verne, Robert Heinlein, Clifford Simak, and many other outstanding authors of the 19th and 20th centuries.
Einstein said, “Anyone seriously pursuing science becomes convinced that the laws of the universe reveal a spiritual principle that is immeasurably superior to human spiritual capabilities. In the face of this spirit, we, with our humble strength, must feel humility. Thus, engaging in science leads to the emergence of a special religious feeling that is actually significantly different from the more naive religiosity of other people.” And religiosity, if it is based on sincere and genuine feelings of the divine presence within oneself, is inextricably linked to the concepts of spirituality and the moral principle.
Barriers & limits for the scientist
A scientist, if he has retained any humanity within him and hasn’t completely turned into an agent of the System, should have some internal barrier that limits and protects scientist from making incorrect, and sometimes even criminal, decisions. After all, almost any product of human that can be used for both creation and destruction (this idea was first voiced by me back in the “Culture, Media, Mass Media” section). And the line here is sometimes very conditional – it’s like thin ice that has just started to freeze over on a river at the beginning of winter. So, a huge responsibility rests on the scientist in this regard. However, the boundaries one cannot cross must be defined and set by each individual for himself.
The point here is primarily about the very close fusion of science and the military-industrial complex, which must be broken once and for all. Science is vitally necessary to move away from the paradigm of war and embark on a path of peaceful, yet active, unwavering development. Science can be anything, but first and foremost, it should not be militarized.
– I would like to note that science does not examine any subject comprehensively and in a multifaceted way.
Example: Imagine a mechanism moving in space in all possible directions – up, down, diagonally, in a circle, making zigzags, tracing a figure eight, and so on. So, science is that institution or phenomenon which, based on its principles and dogmas, can only prove that this mechanism can move only up or down. And be satisfied with that.
Science, as a global institution, along with the vast number of disciplines it represents (astronomy, physics, mathematics, chemistry, sociology, mechanics, and dozens, if not hundreds, of other fields), in my opinion, does not lead to an understanding of the surrounding world, but only to even greater confusion and distraction, thus inadvertently playing into the hands of the Matrix; but if science itself, in its pure form, is undoubtedly a product of the System, then in tandem with religion (in its moral-spiritual aspect), with art, and other higher aspirations of humanity, it is, on the contrary – the most powerful means for breaking the “vicious cycle” of reality and finally exiting the Matrix.
In my opinion, science cannot be a separate, independent phenomenon – it’s like death to it. It should only go “hand in hand” with moral principles and attitudes: with the same religion, art, literature, etc., always and in everything serving people, their true spiritual and mental progress. Only in this case will humanity truly ascend to the next stage of evolution.
The Book of Your Life
“Stepping outside the System is not an open, destructive war. It is the creation of an underground, far-reaching network of free people united by a single noble goal.”